R#   iiiiiii 


-766. 


AMILY   LIMITATION 


AND 


The  Church  and  Birth  Control 


BY 

JOHN  A.  RYAN,  S.T.D. 


New  York 

THE  PAULIST  PRESS 

120  West  60th  Street 


•      •  •    •     • 


We  are  indeDted  to  the  courtesy  of  the  Editor  of  The  Eccle- 
siastical Review  for  permission  to  republish  Dr.  Ryan's  paper  on 
Family  Limitation,  and  to  that  of  the  Editor  of  America  to 
republis!i  the  same  author's  The  Church  and  Birth  Control. 


FAMILY   LIMITATION 


ITHIN  the  last  two  years  certain  periodicals 
have  given  currency  to  such  compounds  as 
"  birth-control,"  "  birth-restriction,"  "  con- 
traceptives," and  "  contraception."  These 
terms  have  been  invented  to  popularize  the  discussion 
of  topics  that  had  previously  been  confined  to  the  pages 
of  medical  and  ethical  treatises.  They  represent  an  at- 
tempt to  translate  the  language  of  a  technical  subject  into 
journalese.  The  underlying  purpose,  however,  has  not 
been  mainly  academic.  It  has  been  rather  to  make 
known  and  recommend  to  the  poorer  classes  devices  for 
the  limitation  of  their  families. 

Fortunateiy  there  is  no  possibility  of  a  legitimate  dif- 
ference of  opinion  on  this  subject  among  Catholics.  To 
persons  who  seek  advice  or  information  concerning  these 
practices  the  confessor  can  give  only  one  answer.  To  all 
objections,  criticisms,  and  questionings  he  can  and  must 
set  forth  the  adverse  decision  of  the  Church.  He  is 
neither  required  nor  permitted  to  decide  the  question  on 
the  basis  of  his  own  fallible  opinion. 

While  this  fact  reassures  his  conscience  and  simplifies 
his  task,  it  does  not  always  give  complete  satisfaction. 
In  this  as  in  many  other  matters  of  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline, the  priest  is  often  called  upon  to  vindicate  the 
Church's  attitude,  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men. 
If  all  Catholics  recognized  that  devices  for  the  prevention 
of  birth  were  grievously  sinful,  the  situation  would  be 
relatively  simple.     Those  who  offended  in  this  respect 


4  Family  Limitation 

would  always  be  confronted  by  their  own  accusing  con- 
sciences, while  the  priest  would  have  no  greater  nor  es- 
sentially different  task  than  if  he  were  dealing  with  the 
violators  of  justice  or  temperance.  Misled,  however,  by 
the  wrong  notions  prevalent  among  their  Non-Catholic 
neighbors,  and  confused  by  the  inherent  moral  difficulties 
of  the  situation,  some  Catholics  have  been  able  to 
persuade  themselves  that  contraceptive  practices  are  not 
necessarily  sinful,  at  least  in  certain  extreme  cases.  In 
many  cities  the  number  of  children  per  family  among 
Catholics  of  the  middle  and  comfortable  classes  is  little 
more  than  half  the  average  that  obtained  in  the  families 
of  their  parents.  A  small  part  of  the  difference  may  be 
due  to  later  marriages  and  the  diminished  fecundity  that 
possibly  results  from  city  life.  Is  the  greater  share  of 
the  decline  to  be  ascribed  to  a  conscious  violation  of  the 
moral  law?  a  deliberate  and  persistent  intention  of  com- 
mitting mortal  sin?  Our  acquaintance  with  many  of 
these  families  impels  us  to  answer  if  possible  these 
questions  in  the  negative,  and  to  choose  the  hypothesis 
of  wrong  conduct  in  good  faith.  We  prefer  to  think 
that  they  are  obstinately  unconvinced  rather  than  that 
they  sin  grievously  and  repeatedly  with  their  eyes  open. 
Hence,  there  seems  to  be  a  considerable  need  of  in-  ^M 
telligent  instruction  as  well  as  uncompromising  statement  ^ 
of  the  law. 

Non-Catholics  sometimes  assume  that  the  Church  for- 
bids family  limitation  by  any  means  whatever.  They 
seem  to  think  that  the  main  object  of  the  Church  in  her 
legislation  on  this  subject  is  the  greatest  possible  increase 
in  population.  Apparently  they  are  unaware  that  it  is 
not  the  deliberate  control  of  births,  but  the  positive  and 
unnatural  means  to  this  end  that  falls  under  the  Church's 


4 


Family  Limitation-  5 

condemnation.  Against  parents  who  keep  their  families 
small  by  chaste  abstention  from  marital  intercourse  the 
Church  has  not  a  word  to  say. 

That  all  positive  methods  of  birth  prevention  (abortion 
and  all  the  so-called  contraceptives)  are  condemned  by 
the  Church  as  grievous  sins,  is  evident  from  the  long 
list  of  official  declarations  on  the  subject  during  the  nine- 
teenth century  by  the  Roman  Congregations.  These 
merely  reaffirm  and  make  more  precise  the  traditional 
discipline  as  proclaimed  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  in  pa- 
tristic and  theological  literature.^ 

What  is  the  rational  ground  of  this  condemnation? 
The  fact  that  all  these  devices  constitute  the  immoral 
perversion  of  a  human  faculty.  According  to  natural 
^^eason,  the  primary  and  fundamental  criterion  of  good 
^  and  bad  is  human  nature  adequately  considered.  Actions 
which  are  in  harmony  with  nature  are  good ;  those  which 
are  not  in  harmony  with  nature  are  bad.     Now,  to  exer- 

Vcise  a  faculty  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  it  from  attain- 
ing its  natural  end  or  object  is  to  act  contrary  to  nature. 
The  application  of  this  principle  to  the  subject  of  con-, 
traceptives  is  obvious.     The  generative  faculty  has  as  its 
specific  and  essential  end   the  procreation  of  offspring. 
That  is  the  object  which  explains  and  rationalizes  this 
particular  faculty.    When  the  faculty  is  so  used  that  the 
very  use  of  it  renders  the  fulfillment  of  its  very  purpose 
impossible,  it  is  perverted,  used  unnaturally,  and  there- 
\    fore  sinfully.     Such  perversion  of  the  generative  faculty 
I  is  on  exactly  the  same  moral  level,  and   is  wrong  for 
\  precisely  the  same  reason  as  the  practice  of  the  solitary 

*A  fairly  satisfactory  discussion  of  the  whole  subject  will  be 
♦ound  in  the  work  by  the  Right  Rev.  M.  B.  Nardi.  O.M.C.,  entitled, 
Dissertatio   de   Sanctitate   Matrimonii   Vindicata.     Romae,    1907. 


6  Family  Limitation  m 

vice.  In  either  case  the  immorality  consists  in  the  fact 
that  a  function  is  performed  in  such  a  way  as  to  frustrate 
its  natural  end.  "  The  rule  not  to  use  a  faculty  in  such 
a  way  as  to  oppose  the  realization  of  its  natural  end  is 
universally  and  absolutely  valid.  There  is  not  a  single 
exception  to  it.  To  use  a  faculty  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  its  natural  end  impossible  of  realization  is  intrinsi- 
cally unnatural  and  bad.  There  could  be  no  more  direct 
and  unequivocal  violation  of  nature  than  this.  It  is  a 
complete  perversion  of  nature's  purposes  and  needs."  ^ 

Observe  that  to  use  a  faculty  perversely  and  un- 
naturally is  not  the  same  thing  as  to  use  it  so  as  to 
regulate  nature,  or  improve  upon  nature.  Cutting  one's 
hair  is  in  a  sense  a  correction  of  nature,  but  the  action 
perverts  no  function,  nor  frustrates  any  natural  end, 
either  of  human  nature  as  a  whole  or  of  the  particular 
faculties  involved  in  the  process. 

Now,  I  am  very  well  aware  that  the  fundamental 
ethical  principle  which  has  just  been  summarily  stated, 
does  not  appeal  to  those  persons  who  take  as  the  basic 
criterion  of  right  and  wrong  happiness,  or  utility,  or  some 
form  of  individual  or  social  welfare.  Their  first  reply 
would  probably  be  that  the  principle  at  the  basis  of  the 
Catholic  view  is  metaphysical.  In  their  opinion  this 
characterization  would  be  a  sufficient  condemnation,  j 
Yes;  the  principle  is  metaphysical.  It  is  based  uponjH 
intrinsic  grounds,  upon  the  necessary  and  essential  rela- 
tions between  functions  and  ends,  and  not  at  all  upon 
considerations  of  utility  or  consequences.  Being  meta- 
physical and  intrinsic,  the  principle  is  incapable  of  demon- 
stration by  recourse  to  experience.  If  it  is  not  self-evi- 
dent, it  is  not  convincing. 

'Cronin,   The  Science  of  Ethics,  p.    130. 


Family  Limitation  7 

But  I  would  remind  these  objectors  that  their  principle 
if  right  and  wrong  is  also  metaphysical.  If  it  is  not,  it 
'is  utterly  irrational.  No  principle  or  proposition  can  be 
established  by  an  infinite  series  of  references  to  further 
principles.  Somewhere  a  limit  must  be  set,  and  this 
limit  must  be  taken  as  self-evident.  Hence,  if  social 
utility  is  set  up  as  the  standard  of  morality,  it  must  be 
accepted  on  faith.  It  cannot  be  proved.  If  a  man  tells 
me  that  such  and  such  actions  are  bad  because  they  con- 
flict with  social  utility,  and  I  ask  him  to  prove  that 
social  utility  is  necessarily  a  good  thing,  he  is  unable 
to  go  further  back  or  deeper  down.  He  must  assume 
that  social  utility  is  good  in  itself,  intrinsically  good. 
Thus,  his  fundamental  position  takes  the  form  of  a 
metaphysical  principle.  In  this  respect  we  are  on  equal 
footing. 

While  no  intelligent  defender  of  the  criterion  of  social 
utility,  or  race  welfare,  will  deny  that  it  is  quite  as  in- 
capable of  demonstration  as  the  criterion  of  rational  na,- 
ture,  many  of  them  contend  that  it  is  more  easily  ac- 
ceptable, more  convincing  on  its  face.  To  say  that  social 
welfare  is  the  determinant  of  right  and  wrong,  that  ac- 
tions are  good  in  so  far  as  they  promote  this  end,  and 
bad  in  so  far  as  they  hinder  it,  is  to  make  a  statement 
which  harmonizes  with  our  concrete,  flesh-and-blood  in- 
terests and  emotions.  It  appeals  to  our  feelings  as  well 
as  to  our  intellects.  On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine 
that  an  action  is  bad  merely  because  it  misuses  a  faculty, 
is  too  remote  and  abstract  to  make  a  very  moving  im- 
pression. It  appeals  to  our  intellect  exclusively,  receiving 
no  assistance  from  the  imagination  or  feelings.  Inas- 
much as  we  are  not  creatures  of  pure  intellect,  oui 
response    to    the    appeal    of    this    abstract    principle    is 


n 


ai 

Ij 


Family  Limitation 

necessarily  less  feeble  than  is  the  case  when  the  sense 
element  of  our  nature  is  interested.  When  the  objector 
asks :  "  What  real  harm  is  done  even  though  a  faculty 
is  used  perversely,  so  long  as  no  injury  occurs  to  health, 
to  mind,  or  to  the  neighbor  ? "  we  can  only  answer : 
"  The  moral  order  is  violated ;  the  intrinsic  relations  be- 
tween faculty  and  function  are  wantonly  ignored ;  the 
sanctity  of  nature  is  outraged ;  the  natural  law  of  human 
organism  is  transgressed."  These  statements  are,  in- 
deed, more  fundamental  and  more  important  in  God's 
scheme  of  things  than  such  passing  and  superficial  facts 
as  health  and  sickness,  wealth  and  poverty,  pleasure  and 
pain;  but  they  are  sadly  lacking  in  realism  when  they 
fall  upon  ears  that  are  not  accustomed  to  intrinsic  truths 
nd  metaphysical  propositions. 

In  the  case  of  contraceptive  practices,  the  intrinsic 
reasoning  is  happily  reenforced  by  powerful  arguments 
from  consequences.  Though  this  is  not  always  evident 
in  the  individual  instance,  it  is  sufficiently  clear  in  the 
long  run.  Such  devices  are  debasing  to  those  who  em- 
ploy them,  inasmuch  as  they  lead  inevitably  to  loss  of 
reverence  for  the  marital  relation,  loss  of  respect  for 
the  conjugal  partner,  and  loss  of  faith  in  the  sacredness 
of  the  nuptial  bond.  Obviously  this  statement  cannot  be 
proved  by  specific  evidence,  or  the  experience  of  par-  ^ 
ticular  married  couples,  but  must  depend  upon  ouri|i 
\  gexieral  knowledge  of  human  psychology.  Here,  how-  i 
ever,  is  the  testimony  of  one  expert,  Dr.  Howard  A. 
Kelly  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  medical  school  and  hospital, 
who  is  one  of  the  country's  greatest  gynecologists: 
*'  Practically,  I  find  that  the  people  who  come  to  me  hav- 
ing used  various  mechanical  devices  of  preventing  con- 
ception, have  lost  .«^mething  in  their  married  life  which 


^ 


^  Family  Limitation  g 

ought  to  have  been  more  precious  to  them  than  life  itself. 
All  meddling  with  the  sexual  relation  to  secure  faculta- 
tive sterility  degrades  the  w^ife  to  the  level  of  a  prosti- 
tute." ^  >^ 

The  limitation  of  families  through  these  practices  is  in-  N 
jurious  to  the  race.  It  leads  inevitably  to  an  increase  ] 
of  softness,  luxury  and  materialism,  and  to  a  decrease  i 
of  mental  and  moral  discipline,  of  endurance,  and  of  the 
pow^er  of  achievement.  To-day,  as  always,  right  and 
reasonable  life  consists  in  knowing  the  best  that  is  to  be 
known,  and  in  loving  the  best  that  is  to  be  loved;  and 
this  means  preferring  the  rational  self  to  the  animal  self, 
the  altruistic  things  to  the  egoistic  things.  To-day,  as 
always,  deeds  worth  while  are  accomplished  only  at  the 
cost  of  continuous  and  considerable  sacrifice,  of  com- 
pelling ourselves  to  do  without  the  immediate  and 
pleasant  goods  for  the  sake  of  the  remote  and  permanent 
goods.  Says  Dr.  Chatterton-Hill,  the  distinguished  so- 
ciologist of  the  University  of  Geneva,  in  The  Sociological 
Value  of  Christianity  (p.  i6o)  :  ''The  continuity  of 
social  existence  is  conditioned  by  society  conforming  it- 
self to  the  great  law  of  struggle  and  suffering;  and  the 
path  which  the  individual  must  follow,  if  he  is  to  attain 
to  moral  perfection,  and  throu.s^h  moral  perfection  to  saL 
vation,  is  likewise  the  path  of  struggle  and  suffering." 

Now  the  practice  of  contraception  springs  from  and  in 
turn  greatly  reenforces  a  diametrically  opposite  theory 
of  life  values.  Its  impelling  principle  is  dislike  of  sacri- 
fice and  disinclination  to  painful  effort ;  its  dominating 
aim  is  the  indefinite  increase  and  variation  of  pleasant 
physical  sensations.  The  atmosphere  that  it  creates  and 
fosters  is  an  atmosphere  of  ease,  egotism,  materialism, 

'See  Harper's  Weekly,  October   i6,   19 15. 


xo  Family  Limitation 

which  is  generally  fatal  to  the  development  of  those  moral 
qualities  which  are  essential  to  high  mental  discipline, 
disinterested  service  of  the  neighbor,  self-denying  appli- 
cation, and  the  sustained  pursuit  of  any  great  and  benefi- 
cent ideal. 

The  small-family  advocates  never  weary  of  assuring 
us  that  in  the  matter  of  children  quality  is  better  than 
quantity.  But  their  policy  is  injurious  to  both.  In  the 
majority  of  small  families,  the  superior  intellectual  and 
material  opportunities  are  more  than  neutralized  by  the 
moral  disadvantages  and  losses,  in  the  form  of  egotism, 
inefficiency,  indolence  and  over-indulgence. 

An  article  on  ''  the  Only  Child "  in  The  Century 
Magazine  for  November,  191 5,  describes  the  manifold 
inferiority  of  "  only  children,"  as  disclosed  by  an  inves- 
tigation of  several  hundred  such  persons.  The  great 
majority  of  them  are  "  lamentably  arrogant  and  selfish," 
"  reach  manhood  and  womanhood  sadly  handicapped  and 
markedly  inferior  to  other  children,"  are  unusually 
"  nervous,"  "  excessively  occupied  with  thoughts  of  self," 
and  in  general  "  grow  up  deficient  in  initiative  and  self- 
reliance."  Common  observation  seems  to  show  that  these 
defects  of  the  "  only  child  "  afflict  in  only  a  lesser  degree 
the  children  of  two-  and  three-child  families.  The  main 
cause  of  the  defects,  a  wrong  theory  of  welfare  involving 
a  bad  system  of  domestic  training,  accounts  for  and  is 
present  in  the  majority  of  small  families,  whether  the 
number  of  children  be  one,  two,  or  three. 

To  be  sure,  it  is  not  possible  to  give  a  mathematical 
demonstration  of  the  proposition  that  the  small-family 
system  means  moral  and  social  decadence.  The  case 
must  rest  upon  an  interpretation  of  general  facts  and 
tendencies,  as  observed  in  everyday  life,  and  upon  the 


Family  Limitation  1 1 

general  lessons  of  history  and  psychology  regarding  na- 
tions and  individuals  that  have  devoted  themselves  to  the 
pursuit  of  ease  and  the  shirking  of  difficulties.  Professor 
Ellwood  tells  us,  in  The  Social  Problem,  that  ''  ma- 
terialistic standards  of  life  "  are  the  dominant  feature  of 
and  the  greatest  menace  to  our  civilization.  Now,  the 
man  who  does  not  see  that  contraceptive  practices  are  at 
once  the  effect  and  the  powerfully  reacting  cause  of 
these  standards,  is  either  ignorant,  or  myopic,  or  preju- 
diced. 

There  is  no  intention  here  of  asserting  that  materialistic 
ideals  and  social  inefficiency  affect  all  small  families. 
Where  the  number  of  children  is  small  despite  the  de- 
sires of  the  parents,  the  moral  perceptions  of  the  latter 
are  healthy;  where  the  number  is  kept  small  through 
sexual  abstinence,  the  moral  ideals  of  the  parents  and 
their  capacity  to  subordinate  the  lower  to  the  higher  self 
will  suffice  to  withstand  the  forces  of  materialism ;  where 
the  husband  and  wife  are  unusually  strong  in  character 
and  in  their  convictions  of  the  worth  of  the  higher  life, 
they  will  often  be  able  to  avoid  the  normal  results  of 
contraceptive  practices.  But  the  latter  are  obviously  ex- 
ceptions to  the  general  rule  governing  their  class. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  do  not  deny  that  the  majority  of 
the  farrrilies  of  unskilled  workingmen  would  have  suffi- 
cient opportunities  of  self-discipline  if  the  number  of 
(  their  children  were  narrowly  limited.  But  the  policy 
\  cannot  be  restricted  to  such  families.  It  is  already  much 
i  more  prevalent  among  the  middle  classes  and  the  rich 
^han  among  the  poor;  and  if  the  latter  should  adopt  it, 
they,  too,  would  desire  to  continue  it  after  they  had  im- 
proved their  financial  position.  Thus,  the  whole  of 
society  would  become  vitiated.     It  is  yet  possible  to  let 


12  Family  Limitation 

the  working-classes  function  as  the  "  saving  remnant "  of 
civiHzation. 

So  much  for  the  deterioration  in  racial  quality.  There 
is  likewise  a  real  danger  to  quantity.  In  France,  where 
the  practice  of  family  limitation  has  been  in  operation 
longest,  the  population  has  been  for  some  years  prac- 
tically at  a  standstill.  It  would  already  have  undergone 
a  considerable  decline  had  it  not  been  greatly  strengthened 
by  the  large  families  in  the  genuinely  Catholic  sections 
of  the  country,  and  materially  supplemented  by  immigra- 
tion from  the  neighboring  countries. 

Should  the  small- family  cult  become  general  through- 
out the  Western  world,  it  would  undoubtedly  bring  the 
other  countries  to  the  condition  of  France.  They  would 
all  then  be  confronted  by  one  of  three  choices :  a  de- 
clining population;  a  population  kept  up  only  by  immi- 
gration from  the  Orient ;  or  depopulation  avoided  only 
by  the  unusually  large  fan>ilies  of  Catholics. 
/  Advocates  of  limitation  sometimes  manipulate!  statis- 
/tics  in  such  a  way  as  to  insinuate,  without  explicitly  as- 
serting, that  the  general  decline  in  the  birth  rate  is  offset 
by  the  decline  in  the  death  rate,  and  that  the  former  is 
the  cause  of  the  latter.  The  fact  is  that  those  countries 
in  which  the  birth  rate  has  become  lowest  have  not,  with 
one  or  two  unimportant  exceptions,  reduced  their  death 
rate  to  an  equal  extent.  And  the  main  cause  of  the  de- 
creasing death  rate  is  the  improvement  in  medicine  and 
hygiene  and  in  the  economic  condition  of  the  masses  dur- 
ing the  last  twenty-five  or  thirty  yearsJjFrance  has  a 
much  lower  birth  rate,  but  a  considerably  higher  death 
rate,  than  Prussia."* 

*See   the   table,   p.    8.    in    Dr.    Newsholme's    The   Declining   Birth 
Rate;    also  Thompson's  Population,  pp.   104-109. 


Family  Limitation  13 

Are  the  great  masses  of  underpaid  laborers  to  be  for- 
bidden to  raise  their  remuneration  through  the  simple 
device  of  lowering  their  birth  rate?  Emphatically,  yes. 
The  end  does  not  justify  the  intrinsically  immoral  means, 
the  practice  of  contraception.  The  condition  of  the 
poorer  classes  would  not  be  genuinely  improved  through 
the  adoption  of  devices  and  ideals  which  make  inevitably 
for  egotism  and  materialism. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  the  immediate 
aim,  the  diminution  of  the  unskilled  section  of  the  popu- 
lation, would  be  as  effective  as  its  advocates  assume. 
The  laboring  masses  of  France,  who  quite  generally  re- 
strict their  numbers  artificially,  are  not  so  well  paid  as 
those  of  Germany.^  The  excessive  size  of  the  group  of 
the  unskilled  laborers  could  be  reduced  to  normal  pro- 
portions by  industrial  education  —  to  say  nothing  of 
immigration  restriction  —  by  improving  their  earning 
power  instead  of  forbidding  them  to  live  normal  family 
lives. 

In  general,  the  proper  remedy  is  a  better  distribution 
of  our  industrial  opportunities  and  products.  Dr.  Ingram 
tells  us  in  A  History  of  Political  Economy  (p.  121)  that 
the  teaching  of  Malthus  was  very  welcome  to  the  higher 
ranks  of  society  because  it  "  tended  to  relieve  the  rich 
and  powerful  of  responsibility  for  the  condition  of  the 
working  classes,  by  showing  that  the  latter  had  chiefly 
themselves  to  blame,  and  not  either  the  negligence  of 
their  superiors  or  the  institutions  of  the  country." 

History  seems  to  be  repeating  itself  in  this  matter. 
Not  only  the  *'  rich  and  powerful,"  but  some  of  our 
economists  would   fasten  upon  the  working  classes  the 

'Fifteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of 
Labor. 


14  Family  Limitation 


guilty  responsibility  for  their  insufficient  incomes.  In  his 
recent  work  on  the  Wealth  and  Income  of  the  People  of 
the  United  States,  Professor  W.  I.  King  declares  that  the 
ultimate  blame  for  low  wages  must  be  laid,  not  upon 
employers,  "  but  upon  the  parents  and  grandparents  of 
the  workers  themselves.  Why  did  these  ancestors  of  the 
present  generation  bring  into  the  world  children  whom 
they  could  afford  neither  to  educate  nor  to  train  for  some 
occupation  the  products  of  which  were  sufficiently  in  de- 
mand to  make  a  living  wage  easily  secured  ?  Why  indeed ! 
Simply  because  these  same  parents  were  either  incom- 
petent, ignorant,  or  unwilling  to  restrain  their  animal 
passions.  Here  we  have  an  excellent  example  of  Visit- 
ing the  iniquity  of  the  father  upon  the  children  unto  the 
third  and  fourth  generations  '  "  (p.  250).  This  statement 
is  not  only  shallow  and  inhuman,  but  disgustingly  phari- 
saical ;  for  it  intimates  that  these  ancestors,  who  make 
sacrifices  of  all  sorts  to  care  for  all  the  children  that 
God  sent  them,  exercised  less  sexual  self-control  than 
those  more  cultured  persons  who  limit  the  number  of 
their  offspring;  whereas,  it  is  notorious  that  most  of  the 
latter  employ  devices  that  increase  rather  than  restrict 
facilities  for  indulging  the  '*  animal  passions." 

Professor   King   admits,   indeed,   that   if   the   present 
national  income,  which  he  estimates  as  averaging  $1,494 
per  family  or  $332  per  individual  annually,  were  equally 
or  almost  equally  divided  among  the  population,  it  would 
/   provide  a  decent  livelihood  for  all ;  but  he  contends  that 
/     if  this  were  done  the  poor  would  multiply  more  rapidly, 
and  in  a  few  years  be  as  badly  off  as  before.     Professor 
Thompson  goes  further,  and  asserts  that  population  can- 
not continue  to  increase  at  even  the  present  rate,  "  with- 
)    out  being  more  and  more  subjected  to  the  actual  want 


I 


/ 


Family  Limitation  15 


of  food."^  Indeed,  the  latter's  thesis  is  that  Malthus  was 
essentially  correct  in  maintaining  that  population  would 
increase  faster  than  subsistence  unless  retarded  by  posi- 
tive checks. 

Are  these  forecasts  sound?  If  they  are,  what  is  the 
remedy  ?  Is  it  prolonged  or  permanent  celibacy  for  large 
sections  of  the  population,  and  extended  periods  of  con- 
jugal abstinence  for  great  numbers  of  married  couples? 
None  of  these  questions  can  be  adequately  answered  in 
the  closing  paragraphs  of  this  pamphlet.  We  shall  not  at- 
tempt to  do  more  than  state  the  various  elements  of  the 
situation. 

Despite  the  pessimistic  predictions  of  Mnlthufij-th"  food 
supply  per  capita  is  much  more  abundant  to-day  than  it 
was  when  he  wrote  his  Essay  on  Population.  It  is  very 
much  greater  than  it  was-siAty  JeaTs  after  his  book  was 
published.  According  to  the  computations  of  Professor 
King,  the  average  annual  income  for  each  person  in  the 
United  States  was  only  $116  in  i860,  as  against  $332  in 
1910.'^  Would  the  latter  ratio  have  been  maintained  if 
race  suicide  had  been  unknown,  and  if  practically  all 
females  above  twenty  years  of  age  had  married?  We 
knov/  that  the  birth  rate  of  the  native  element  in  our 
population  has  declined  very  considerably  in  the  last 
half  century,  and  the  last  census  tells  us  that  in  1910 
there  were  in  the  country  approximately  five  million 
females  of  twenty  years  of  age  and  over  who  were  un- 
married. The  law  of  diminishing  returns  would  seem 
to  give  a  negative  answer  to  the  question  just  asked. 
Professor  Thompson's  study  seems  to  show  that  the 
additional   labor   of   these   potential   millions   would   not 

'^Population :    A   Study  in  Malthusianism,  p.    163. 
''Op.   cit.,   p.    129. 


i6  Family  Limitation 

have  been  able  to  draw  from  the  land  as  large  a  product 
per  worker  as  the  labor  that  was  actually  engaged.  Be- 
sides, the  quantity  of  unproductive  children  would  have 
formed  a  much  greater  proportion  of  the  population  than 
is  the  case  at  present.  Each  producer  would  have  had  to 
feed  a  larger  number  of  consumers. 

The  main  reason  of  the  failure  of  Malthus'  prophecy 
was  the  improved  methods  of  production,  which  have 
enabled  the  individual  laborer  to  get  out  of  the  earth 
a  much  larger  supply  of  food  than  was  possible  in  1798. 
May  we  not  expect  this  process  to  go  on  indefinitely, 
always  keeping  well  ahead  of  the  increase  of  popula- 
tion ?  Professor  Thompson  says  no.  "  The  agricultural 
development  which  came  as  a  result  of  rapid  transpor- 
tation, the  invention  of  labor-saving  farm  machinery, 
and  the  abundance  of  new  and  fertile  lands  cannot  be 
duplicated."*  This  is  a  more  or  less  reasonable  con- 
jecture. It  is  not  a  certainty.  Perhaps  new  methods  of 
production  will  be  discovered  as  far  superior  to  those  of 
the  present  as  the  latter  are  to  the  ones  that  Malthus 
knew.  On  the  other  hand,  perhaps  large  numbers  of 
persons  will  some  day  be  obliged  to  choose  between 
temporary  or  permanent  celibacy  and  long  periods  of 
abstinence  within  the  marital  union.  Here  we  are  on 
uncertain  ground.  What  we  know  is  that  for  the  present 
there  is  no  occasion  to  worry.  Enough  of  the  good 
things  of  life  is  produced  to  give  all  our  people  a  decent 
living,  if  they  were  reasonably  and  justly  distributed. 
Sensible  persons  will  not  cross  the  bridge  of  overpopu- 
lation until  they  come  to  it. 

"Op.  cit.,  p.  130. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  BIRTH  CONTROL 


In  a  recent  issue  of  a  popular  magazine  a  Protestant 
clerg-yman  expresses  his  frank  agreement  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  CathoHc  Church  on  the  subject  of  family 
limitation,  and  his  earnest  hope  that  this  doctrine  will 
prevail  throughout  society.  He  believes,  however,  that 
the  Church  should  go  further.  He  would  have  her  pro- 
mote race  betterment  by  refusing  to  sanction  marriages 
of  the  unfit,  and  encourage  large  families  by  raising  her 
voice  in  favor  of  a  better  distribution  of  wealth. 

The  marriage  of  defective  and  subnormal  persons 
a  very  complex  subject,|  and  therefore  cannot  be  ade 
quately  treated  in  a  short  pamphlet.  The  most  that  can 
be  done  here  is  to  say  a  word  on  each  of  the  more  im- 
portant phases  of  the  question.  I«  the  first  place,  the 
Church  always  looks  upon  the  spiritual  and  moral  side 
of  individuals  and  institutions  as  much  more  important 
than  their  physical  aspects  or  consequences.  She  regards 
marriage  as  a  considerable  aid  to  right  living  in  the  case 
of  the  majority  of  persons,  and  she  thinks  of  the  off- 
spring not  merely  as  a  more  or  less  perfect  organism, 
but  as  a  person  possessing  a  spiritual  and  immortal  soul. 
Hence  she  desires  that  the  individual  should  have  the 
fullest  practicable  and  reasonable  liberty  with  regard  to 
marriage;  she  counts  the  earthly  existence  of  a  helpless 
cripple,  a  chronic  invalid,  or  a  mental  weakling  intrinsi- 
cally good,  and  she  knows  that  all  such  persons  are 
capable  of  a  life  of  eternal  happiness  face  to  face  with 
God.  Consequently  her  viewpoint  is  infinitely  removed 
from  that  of  those  practical  atheists  who  measure  the 
worth  of  a  subnormal  person  by  the  same  standard  that 
they  apply  to  a  dog  or  a  horse.  While  the  Church  is 
not  unmindful  of  the  interests  of  society  and  the  welfare 


") 


i8  The  Church  and  Birth  Control 

I    of  the  race,   she  is  not  yet  convinced  that  these  have 

■  been  sufficiently  endangered  to  justify  her  in  denying  to 

■  large  classes  of  individuals  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
normal  life.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  ''  the  welfare  of  the 

\  race  "  is  in  the  minds  of  the  majority  of  persons  who  use 

'  the  phrase   a  mere   abstraction  that  corresponds  to  no 

definite  idea;    or  it  means  the  welfare  of  the  fortunate 

majority  who  do  not  desire  the  inconvenience  of  helping 

I   to  support  any  considerable  number  of  defectives. 

In  conformity  with  her  doctrines  concerning  the  right 
of  the  individual  to  marry,  the  worth  of  the  human  per- 
.  son,  and'  the  sacredness  of  the  human  soul,  the  Church 
i  has  never  established  any  impediment  to  matrimony  on 
the  mere  ground  of  the  kind  of  offspring  that  might  be 
expected  to  result.  She  sanctioned  the  marriage  of 
lepers  even  when  the  social  presence  of  such  persons  was 
looked  upon  as  a  grave  danger  to  the  community.  While 
she  forbids  the  marriage  of  insane  persons,  the  reason  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  quality  of  the  children,  but  in  the 
fundamental  circumstance  that  the  parents  are  incapable 
of  making  a  binding  contract. 

Now  this  position  of  the  Church  is  entirely  reasonable, 
and  in  the  long  run  socially  beneficial.  Suppose  that  the 
Church  were  willing  to  forbid  the  marriage  of  all  de- 
fectives on  the  ground  that  their  offspring  would  be 
subnormal.  Two  questions  would  then  arise.  What  is  a 
defective?  And  what  kinds  of  defectiveness  are  heredi- 
tary? Some  of  the  eugenists  would  favor  so  broad  an 
interpretation  of  defectiveness  as  to  take  in  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  population,  probably  a  majority  of  our 
ordinary,  undistinguished  citizens.  They  would  include 
all  those  classes  that  they  are  pleased  to  call  ''  inferior 
types,"  restricting  the  privilege  of  marriage  to  the  super- 


The  Church  and  Birth  Control  19 

man  and  superwoman.  This  would  be  a  fine  thing  for 
society,  that  is,  for  the  supermen  and  superwomen,  who 
alone  would  constitute  society!  However,  let  us  assume 
that  a  rational  definition  of  defectiveness  were  adopted, 
that  only  those  persons  would  be  included  who  were  in 
a  very  pronounced  way.  subnormal,  either  physically, 
mentally,  or  morally.  We  should  then  be  confronted  with 
the  second  question.  Do  these  persons  really  transmit 
their  disabilities  to  their  offspring?  In  the  midst  of  the 
enormous  ignorance,  the  absurd  exaggeration,  and  the 
conflicting  opinions  surrounding  this  question,  the  ordi- 
nary person  hesitates  to  set  down  any  definite  answer. 
Nevertheless,  there  are  three  propositions  which,  if  not 
absolutely  conclusive,  are  at  present  incapable  of  dis- 
proof. First,  the  only  hereditary  mental  defects  are  in- 
sanity and  feeblemindedness;  second,  the  only  physical 
defects  of  any  significance  that  are  even  probably  handed- 
down  by  the  generative  process  are  alcoholic  degenera- 
tion and  the  deterioration  resulting  from  certain  chronic 
venereal  diseases;  third,  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence 
to  create  even  a  slight  probability  that  moral  degeneracy 
as  such  is  transmissible  to  the  offspring. 

In  this  situation  the  present  attitude  of  the  Church 
toward  the  marriage  of  the  "  unfit "  is  clearly  the  only 
prudent,  fair,  and  reasonable  attitude.  The  more  pro- 
nounced victims  of  feeblemindedness  are  either  segre- 
gated from  society,  and  therefore  prevented  from  mar- 
rying by  the  State,  or  their  condition  is  so  obvious  that, 
even  should  they  be  capable  of  a  contract,  not  many  of 
them  would  enter  upon  it.  After  all,  it  is  possible  for 
the  clergy  to  discourage  and  prevent  undesirable  unions 
by  the  exercise  of  common  sense  and  tact  in  individual 
cases,  without  the  need  or  aid  of  a  rigid  ecclesiastical 


20  The  Church  and  Birth  Control 

prohibition.  This  would  be  done.  And  in  the  present 
unsatisfactory  state  of  our  knowledge  on  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  heredity,  this  informal  method  of  dealing  with 
certain  and  pronounced  cases  of  feeblemindedness  is  both 
fair  to  the  individual  and  sufficiently  effective  for  the 
interests  of  society.  The  less  pronounced  cases  of  feeble- 
mindedness should  be  given  the  benefit  of  the  presump- 
tion that  these  persons  have  a  right  to  marry,  and  that 
the  amount  of  mental  defectiveness  which  they  will  trans- 
mit is  not  of  serious  social  importance.  As  to  the  only 
other  classes  involved ;  namely,  alcoholic  and  venereal 
degenerates,  they  would  certainly  be  strongly  discouraged 
from  marrying  by  any  priest,  not  so  much  on  account  of 
the  assumed  transmissibility  of  these  defects  as  for  the 
sake  of  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  the  married  per- 
sons themselves. 

^**It  is  not  impossible  that  the  Church  may  some  day 
institute    a    new    matrimonial    impediment    which    will 
exclude  those  whose  union  is  a  social  danger.     But  it 
is   certain   that   she   will   take    no    such    step   until   the 
laws  of  heredity  are  much  better  understood  than  they 
are  at  present,  and  the  danger  to  society  from  inherited 
I, defects   is  much  greater  both  in  depth  and  in  volume 
I  (than  it  appears  to  be  in  the  light  of  existing  scientific  in- 
I  formation.     She  has  had  a  long  history,  and  has  wit- 
''^nessed  the  rise  and  fall  of  innumerable  social  theories ; 
hence  she  is  disposed  to  be  cautious  and  patient,  to  sub- 
mit each  new  proposal  to  the  rigorous  test  of  adequate 
knowledge  and  experience,  and  to  refuse  to  be  stampeded 
into  making  radical  changes  in  her  legislation  at  the  be- 
hest of  every  novel  theory  that  proclaims  itself  to  be 
scientific.     And  it  is  well  for  both  the  individual  and  the 
race  that  she  is  thus  cautious  and  conservative,  aye,  and 


J 


The  Church  and  Birth  Control  21 

scientific  in  the  trues^Tree-«i-J±iaJ— Wrm.  It  is  well  that 
she  refuses  to  take  theories  for  established  facts  in  such 
a  vital  matter  as  the  liberty  of  the  individual  to  fulfill  one 
of  the  two  primary  demands  of  his  nature.  It  is  better 
to  concede  too  much  to  individual  liberty  than  to  exag- 
gerate the  interests  and  claims  of  society.  The  latter 
course  leads  inevitably  to  the  aggrandizement  of  one  sec- 
tion of  the  population  at  the  expense  of  another  section, 
and  to  such  a  volume  of  dissension,  lawlessness,  social 
expense,  and  individual  demoralization  as  to  leave  the 
latter  state  of  society  worse  than  the  first.  How  easily 
disregard  of  individual  rights  and  hasty  generalizations 
concerning  the  welfare  of  society  may  issue  in  mistaken 
and  harmful  legislation,  is  seen  in  the  movement  for  the 
sterilization  of  defectives  and  habitual  criminals.  Within 
the  last  ten  years  several  of  our  States  have  enacted  laws 
to  carry  out  this  extremely  radical  proposal.  Yet  the 
best  scientific  opinion  now  holds  in  the  words  of  Pro- 
fessor Ellwood®  that  this  ''  is  dangerous  or  at  least 
a  questionable  law." 

A  considerable  proportion  of  the  public  easily  assumes 
that  certain  things  are  conclusively  proved  just  because 
somebody  who  pretends  to  have  expert  knowledge  as- 
serts that  they  are  true,  and  calls  them  "  scientific."  One 
of  the  most  ludicrous  and  amazing  instances  of  this  shal- 
lowness is  furnished  by  '*  Judge  "  Henry  Neil,  who  is 
glorified  in  certain  quarters  as  the  "  Father  of  Mothers' 
Pensions."  He  maintains  that  these  pensions  should  be 
extended  to  deserted  wives  because  only  bad  fathers  de- 
sert, and  society  should  not  desire  bad  fathers  to  remain 
with  their  wives  and  beget  feebleminded  children!*" 
The  learned  Judge  calmly  assumes  that  the  kind  of  bad- 

*The  Social  Problem,  p.    129.  ^T/j^   Public,   October   8,    1915- 


22  The  Church  and  Birth  Control 

ness  which  impels  husbands  to  desert  is  a  species  of 
feeblemindedness,  and  that  it  is  hereditary.  No  doubt 
his  assumption  is  based  upon  some  solemn  assertion  to 
this  effect  by  some  pretended  expert,  and  no  doubt  many 
other  superficial  persons  will  adopt  the  same  view  be- 
cause it  has  been  dogmatically  voiced  by  Judge  Neil. 
Let  us  thank  God  that  the  mind  of  the  Church  is  more 
critical  and  scientific! 

Concerning  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  "  raise  her  voice 
for  a  more  equitable  distribution,"  in  order  that  all  par- 
ents may  have  the  means  to  bring  up  a  family  of  normal 
size,  two  points  deserve  brief  consideration.  First  the 
rearing  of  a  large  family  is,  indeed,  a  grievous  hardship 
in  the  case  of  a  large  section  of  our  working  people,  and 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  proclaim,  and  as  far  as 
practicable  to  enforce  the  moral  right  of  all  such  persons 
to  the  economic  requisites  of  decent  family  life.  But  the 
Church  has  done  and  is  doing  this  very  thing.  It  is  now 
almost  a  quarter  of  a  century  since  Pope  Leo  XIIL  laid 
down  the  doctrine  that  the  laborer  has  a  strict  natural 
right  to  a  wage  that  will  enable  him  to  live  in  reasonable 
and  frugal  comfort ;  and  the  document  in  which  he  pub- 
lished this  teaching  indicates  in  more  than  one  place 
that  the  Pope  had  in  mind  the  needs  of  a  family,  not 
merely  the  personal  needs  of  the  laboring  head  of  the 
family.  Were  this  teaching  heeded  no  parent  could 
truthfully  assert  that  he  was  limiting  the  size  of  his 
family  on  account  of  economic  necessity.  That  the  doc- 
trine has  not  been  so  widely  and  continuously  dis- 
seminated and  followed  as  it  should  have  been,  is  un- 
happily true ;  but  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  applica- 
tion of  it  to  concrete  cases  is  often  extremely  difficult, 
and    that    our    industrial    organization    is    bewilderingly 


-  23 

complex.    In  3  being  done 

to  give  publ    -.J    ^.--    - -      .;--icad:;  _    truth 

that  all  who  labor  have  a  moral  right  to  the  goods  that 
are  necessary  for  reasonable  family  life.  Our  ecclesias- 
tical seminaries,  and  colleges,  and  universities  are  giving 
courses  of  instruction  on  social  questions,  study  clubs  and 
lectures  on  the  same  subject  are  increasing  in  number 
and  scope,  and  day  by  day  the  number  of  persons  is 
rapidly  growling  who  are  coming  to  realize  that  a  better 
distribution  of  the  world's  goods  is  of  vital  moral  im- 
portance. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  easily  possible  to  exaggerate 
the  relation  between  a  decent  livelihood  and  decent  con- 
jugal conditions.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  abominable 
practices  that  make  for  race  suicide  are  much  more  in 
vogue  among  those  persons  that  have  sufficient  goods  for 
reasonable  living  than  among  those  who  are  below  this 
level.  Not  the  desire  to  live  decently  but  the  desire  to 
live  luxuriously  and  indolently,  is  the  main  force  im- 
pelling men  and  women  to  these  disgusting  devices.  So 
far  as  such  persons  are  concerned,  a  better  distribution 
of  goods  would  not  improve  matters  at  all.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  all  the  workers  were  in  receipt  of  decent  wages, 
and  if  they  were  to  adopt  contraceptive  devices  in  the 
same  proportion  as  the  middle  classes  and  the  rich,  the 
evil  that  we  deplore  would  be  more  widespread  by  far 
than  it  is  at  present.  The  plain  truth  is  that  the  evil  is 
fundamentally  moral  rather  than  economic.  It  has  its 
roots  in  a  wrong  view  of  life,  and  of  what  constitutes 
a  worthy  and  reasonable  life.  This  false  philosophy  of' 
life  can  be  eradicated  only  by  sound  moral  education,  and 
one  of  the  most  effective  elements  in  such  an  education 
is  the  unyielding  teaching  and  attitude  of  the  Church. 


14  DAV  USE  ,^ 

TLr'GthoUc  World 


THE  NATIONAL  CATHOLIC  MONTHLY 

ESTABLISHED  IN  1865 

A  Magazine  for  Clergy  and  Laity 

The  Catholic  World  presents  every  month  capable 
articles  on  the  great  social  and  religious  problems  of 
reconstruction.  Besides  articles  of  the  more  serious 
kind,  it  gives  also  the  lighter  article:  the  short  story: 
reviews  of  the  latest  books :  and  a  summary  of  current 
events. 

Endorsed  by  the  Holy  Father. 

Recommended  by  the  .American  hierarchy. 


Subscription  price,  $4.00  a  year. 

Single  copies,  40  cents. 

Sample  Copy  Sent  on  Request 


THE  CATHOLIC  WORLD 

120  West  60th  Street 
New  York  City 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


4a 


m 


m^im954 


SENT  ON  ILL 


P^ECEIVED 


AUG  2  8  2002 


mv2,.6eap.i"-'^''^-"^" 


SENTONtLL 


LOAM  DEPT. 


m  IB  2004 


g,  fli.  BERKELEY 


■a-s- 


«tfl.ciB.   JN2676 


O^C  0  9  1990 


SENT  ON  ILL 


FEB  1  5  200? 
U.C.  BERKELEY 


W^MSNOV^'^m 


LD  21A-60ii<-2.'6' 


General  Library 
T'^ntversity  of  California 

Berkeley 


